While one of Jose Reyes’ representatives expressed disappointment this week with the Marlins for going back on their word, Buehrle and agent Jeff Barry issued a joint statement Wednesday expressing their view on the matter.
“I’m upset with how things turned out in Miami,” Buehrle said. “Just like the fans in South Florida, I was lied to on multiple occasions. But I’m putting it behind me and looking forward to moving on with my career.”
Marlins baseball czar Larry Beinfest, asked directly on a Monday conference call about reports of “verbal assurances” given to Reyes and Buehrle, said those didn’t come from him and were nothing he was privvy to.
If any such assurances had been made by him, Beinfest said, he would have put them in writing.
“In an off-season of change and uncertainty, the overriding factor in Mark’s signing with Miami was Ozzie Guillen and the level of comfort his presence provided Mark and his family,” Barry said in his statement. “While the Marlins were the highest bidder, baseball had already made Mark a wealthy man, so money was far from the most important factor in his decision.
“Throughout the recruiting process, the Marlins made repeated assurances about their long-term commitment to Mark and his family and their long-term commitment to building a winning tradition of Marlins baseball in the new stadium. This was demonstrated by their already completed signings of Ozzie, Heath Bell and Jose Reyes.
“At the same time, given the Marlins’ history, we were all certainly aware of and voiced concern about the lack of no-trade protection. This is unquestionably a business, and signing with the Marlins was a calculated risk. Mark held up his end of the bargain; unfortunately, the same can’t be said of the Marlins.”
Repoz
Posted: November 21, 2012 at 02:57 PM |
209 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
marlins
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Those last 2 thoughts seem odd juxtaposed together.
If you are aware that the Marlins specifically retained their ability to trade you/your client, than having them exercise that right cannot be described as not keeping up their end of the bargain.
Lying to get what you want, even if you are lying to get money, is generally wrong.
This is true but at the same time there's a "fool me once..." thing at work here. I mean this wasn't exactly a surprising result here.
Beyond that I imagine I can think of any number of ways where Buehrle would have heard "we won't trade you" while the Marlins never said it. "Mark, we aren't giving you this contract to trade you", "Mark, you're a key part of the Marlins' plan." "Mark, we look forward to you ending your career in Miami." People hear what they want to hear.
But the moral world is also not zero-sum. The fact that he should have known better doesn't absolve the Marlins of dishonorable behavior. It just means he should have known better. The two issues are mostly independent.
The thing about scorpions is, they're invertebrates. Humans are generally held to higher standards.if I'm following, your semi-defense of the Marlins is that they might have only sought to imply false things to Buehrle without ever technically lying. (1) I doubt it, David Samson isn't close to that smart, and (2) that's still wrong!
This is the most obvious point. The Marlins have a grand tradition (both under Loria and before) of dumping players they just signed/traded for. I'm sure Carlos Delgado wasn't expecting to spend the bulk of his contract with the Mets, rather than the Marlins, given that he turned down the Mets as a FA, and yet that's what happened.
I agree - if they were lied to their faces (seems likely), it is fine to call out the lying liars. The fact that the Marlins can legally and contractually do this doesn't make it right or acceptable.
But I still don't like the complaining of the breaking of the supposed verbal no-trade clauses. Agents would never agree to some deal where part of the actual salary was only verbally committed to and not explicitly part of the contract, so why are they seemingly putting stock in other compensation which was only verbally committed to? If your negotiation doesn't result in an actual NTC or at least a poison pill or an escalator, you shouldn't pretend that it did.
I don't think anyone is absolving the Marlins of dishonorable behavior. Everyone is instead saying "yeah, if that's what they told him, it's dishonorable. But it's the Marlins. Why wouldn't you expect them to do something like this?"
"They acted dishonorably. He should have known better." The fact that he should have known better doesn't affect the judgment as to whether they acted dishonorably, but even you are writing as if it did.
That's actually not true. The law requires that Buehrle's contract be in writing (an employment contract of over a year) to be enforceable by either party. Number two, the contract almost certainly contains an "integration clause," wherein both parties agree that the only enforceable promises are those contained in the contract.
If there was fraud in the inducement to enter the contract, that's can be actionable, even in the face of an integration clause, but of course that didn't happen here.
Moreover, the alleged oral promise is quite often reduced to writing when it actually exists -- the standard no-trade clause.
So the reality is that the applicable "moral code" has been entirely encapsulated in the law of contracts.
I don't think it's that cut and dried, everyone spins things to put themselves in the best light. Go to match.com or other places if you need to see examples of that in action.
Obviously if they flat out lied to him that's a different issue but I have no expectation that the Marlins are going to lay out a 100% accurate description of things anymore than I would expect Buehrle's agent to note that pitchers in their 30s often decline dramatically.
No, only as to contracts the law requires to be in writing to be enforceable. Adults get "promises" in writing -- particularly when they're standard parts of negotiations, like no-trade contracts -- and if they aren't in writing they don't consider them enforceable. That's what children do.
In lieu of being an adult and getting the no-trade in writing, Buehrle took the extra money.(*) His complaints at this point are juvenile, and quite likely false.
(*) Albert Pujols liked the Marlins' money, too, but wanted a no-trade. When they said no, he said no.
No. This is stupid lawyer thinking.
You're not answering Matt's question. Matt is talking about the "moral world". You're answering with reference to the "legal world". These are two different things. Something can be moral but illegal. Something can be legal but immoral.
I don't feel all that sorry for Mark Buehrle. As he admits here, he knew this was a possibility. But Florida has no state income tax, while I believe Canada has higher taxes than the U.S. So he actually probably does come out of this a little bit poorer (with poorer, of course, being a relative term; Mark Buerhle is still going to be a very, very rich man).
as for buehrle, ya he got treated kinda crummy, but it's not like he's getting cut and not getting a dime, like what can happen to other athletes.
Taxes are in fact higher in Canada, but (as Paul Beeston was always at pains to point out to any free agent the Jays were negotiating with) there's a reciprocal agreement between the US and Canada. He won't pay Canadian rates, he'll pay based on his US residency.
The bad news is, he no longer has any say in where he works.
Luckily, Canada is awesome.
Agent: Great, let's put it in writing.
Marlins: Done. Also, I assure you that we will not trade your client.
Agent: Great, let's also put that in writing.
Marlins: No
Agent: Good enough for me!
----
He no longer had that say when he signed the contract.
And if they still have the rule that a player traded during the middle of a multi-year contract can force a trade after one year, he actually has more of a say in where he works than he did before the Fish traded him.
I know that's just a figure of speech but the dry, desiccated husk of Bud Selig is indeed evil to his blackened core.
They no longer have that rule.
Isn't it a province-wide ban on pit bulls?
Yes.
Maybe the Premier should give Buehrle verbal assurances that the ban won't be enforced...
I think its interesting that this has become a very grey area. I think there are still many people who think that spinning, as ubiquitous as it is, is wrong. It is essential to do this when running a business, a country, a political party, or a baseball team, but no one likes it when its done to them. However, when done to someone else, most people's first reaction is "they should have known better". Its as if misleading is so common that trusting anyone is considered at best naive, yet trust is essential for a properly functioning society. there seems to be some serious issues here.
What Premier?
Just think, if McGuinty hadn't resigned and prorogued Queen's Park, the ban may have been lifted by now (and not because of the trade)
Can't happen. Our premier quit and moved back in with his Mommy. We are currently sans premier
While this did happen in the 1997-1998 and 2005-2006 offseasons both times the Marlins had the excuse of a poor stadium lease. Now they have a shiny new one just built and kaboom they destroy the team right away. I can understand how the players thought that this time could be different. In truth, anyone traded away from Miami now should be happy as it would not be a fun place to play in 2013 unless a miracle happens and the team gets off to a strong start.
Yeah, looking to Ozzie as the bastion of calm continuity....what could go wrong ?
Horse sheet.
He already made 90 million in your career, Florida signed him to a deal that is going to pay him another 48 million while he will most likely be far less productive than he has been in the past.
I understand he is a human being, and change, moving, etc, is stressful no matter who you are or how much you make. But how much you make is VERY MUCH the point here. He is paid sufficiently that he should be suppressing his whining over being "lied" to....especially in lieu of a contractual commitment.
He should have demanded the no trade clause in the negotiations, and if it was really that important to him, he should have moved onward to another team. But he chose to take the most money without the guarantee he wouldn't be moved. HIS CHOICE.
I am seldom one of those guys to criticize the whining ballplayer. I really am sensitive to the fact that they have the same feelings and emotions we do. But he is paid enough to overcome those things. In this economy and environment with so many people suffering, it really shows a disconnect with the reality for the vast majority of people on this planet.
Come on. Buerhle is not exactly a simpleton. And was represented by an agent. He was free to negotiate at any time a no-trade clause. He didn't, most likely because it would have cost him money.
The Marlins did nothing wrong, either morally or otherwise, and even if one thinks that they did, one would have to have been a fool to look at their history and the ballpark situation and not have seen it coming.
No, the dishonorable thing is to try to claim that someone did something wrong because they didn't hold to "promises" that weren't part of the contract. The Marlins did not breach the contract, so Buerhle's whining is out of bounds. And these contracts are such that every little thing actually promised is written down, such as luxury boxes and the like; no-trade clauses are obviously quite standard, and side deals are specifically disallowed.
Also, he doesn't have to be all sad and crap to feel like he was lied to. It's generally irritating to be lied to.
Also, it seems from this that Buehrle and his agent specifically considered this issue in advance - as they must have - and made a calculated risk to accept the deal:
“At the same time, given the Marlins’ history, we were all certainly aware of and voiced concern about the lack of no-trade protection. This is unquestionably a business, and signing with the Marlins was a calculated risk. Mark held up his end of the bargain; unfortunately, the same can’t be said of the Marlins.”
No. The Marlins did hold up their end. And what kind of morons - there is no other word for it - come away from this conversation thinking that there is a commitment to the player such that he won't be traded:
"We want Mark to sign with us long term."
"Okay, and Mark wants no-trade protection."
"Well, we do want Mark long term, but we're not willing to give no-trade protection."
"Cool, that means Mark can never be traded! We accept!"
Also this is completely one sided. If Buehrle had gotten injured or sucked, no one would be saying that he wronged the Marlins. It's a little different because the Marlins have choice here, but they also didn't choose to win 69 games last year. I don't think that if they had own 90 games they would have made this trade.
Finally, IMIO, for morality to be invoked someone actually needs to have gotten hurt. Buehrle getting paid 30 million the next two years and going to a team that has a better shot of contending does not qualify as getting hurt to me.
Just so we're clear, this conversation only happened in your head, right? For all we know, it was, "Yeah, we can't give you a no trade, that's a company policy thing because of such and such. But don't worry, we're not trading you, you have my word on that."
Yeah, and if you cut off one of his fingers, he'd still have 9 left and $30 million, so no harm done!
Trading Reyes is slightly different because he will have a lot of surplus value the next couple of years (although the back end of his contract is pretty bad). And trading Johnson is the real kick to the balls as he's a near ace level pitcher making less than Beuhrel money.
However, I think Yunel is a terrific value (he projects about 1.5 WAR worse than Reyes for 1/3rd of the cost) and they probably couldn't have gotten him without sending Johnson (or eating a bunch of the Reyes/Buehrle contract). Furthermore the prospects they got back have a lot of value as well.
How is this any different from what I wrote? I wrote "We're not willing to give you no-trade protection." Which is the same as what you posit above. Adding the magic words "because we have a company policy" doesn't actually accomplish any wizardry. Company policies are not handed down by God; they're another way of saying that the company is not willing to give what is being asked for.
This is really dumb. If you offer a no trade clause, that means you're legally obligated not the trade the player. If there is no no trade clause, you reserve the right to trade the player. The "company policy" is that they want to be able to trade the player if they feels it's in the best interests of the club (or Loria's wallet).
"We do want Mark long term."
But it's kind of funny that my speculated phrasing was rejected... fine, but in favor of the speculated phrasing you came up with? How is yours any truer than mine?
We can offer you a 4-year deal, but 5-year deals are against company policy, but we will totally pay you $14 million in 2016, trust us. Think any agent goes for that?
NTCs are tangible, routine things in player contracts, this wasn't them reneging on them promising to use him as a starter, or promising him the opening day start, or some other nebulous thing that isn't normally put into contracts.
But if this would still be okay under my phrasing, why is your imagined conversation so tilted in the other direction? Because you realize that it's not actually fair to say you'll do one thing and then do the other?
Ok we have no idea what the Marlins said. All we know is that they did not offer a no trade clause, which means they were already thinking about a scenario in which they would trade him at the signing of the contract. In fact the Marlins offered Beuhrle more money than any other team because they wanted the ability to trade him.
This seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Sometimes employers will make verbal promises of promotions or raises based on certain conditions. If they don't come through, they haven't broken any promises but people will rightly think poorly of their behavior.
Now, what if that employer's contracts were governed by a CBA under which these things could not be verbally promised and had to be written into contracts? Buerhle's not an at-will employee and not hired under a verbal agreement. If the Marlins are expressly forbidden from offering things not included in a contract, how could Buehrle reasonably believe that he was?
And then, according to him, team officials made verbal promises they had no intention of keeping.
Just to be clear, I do think poorly of the Marlins if they broke promises to Buehrle. I'm guessing what the Buehrle camp is steamed about was the promises or assurances of the direction the club was headed (i.e. things that could not be written into his contract), and not necessarily some informal no-trade promise. I'd guess they would be similarly upset if the team was dismantled and he, not Stanton, was the only good player left behind.
"We promise we won't trade your client."
"If you mean that, then putting it in writing is not an issue."
I'm wondering where the conversation went from there. 'Company policy' is a pretty lame response when you're returning a twelve pack of flat cola to Wal Mart. Lame doesn't begin to describe the situation with a $50+ million contract.
I agree, and think that's pretty strong justification for being upset about being lied to. The trade part, not so much.
Well, the higher income tax rate is going to cost him some money.
Is the fact that they did something prohibited by the CBA supposed to be a defense of the Marlins?
If Buehrle and Reyes accepted the verbal side agreement, they did something prohibited by the CBA as well. It's not just an ownership thing.
If MLB has good evidence that Loria, Buehrle, and Reyes had illegal side agreements, then the proper response by MLB would be to fine all 3 parties. Buehrle and Reyes aren't aggrieved parties here, if what they say is true, they're essentially disgruntled co-conspirators.
FWIW I'm a lawyer; I still think it's best practice to keep your word even if you're not contractually obliged to do so.
Instead, he's basically saying, "Yeah, I was dumb and believed them - and it backfired." Translation: "Don't be dumb like me."
Also, you know this doesn't sit well with the MLBPA, contract or no. They're going to take the players' point of view into consideration, and they might do something like make no-trades for 10-and-5s (even once they are no longer "5"s) part of the CBA.
If Buehrle and Reyes had secret, verbal understandings with Loria, then all 3 of them violated the terms of the CBA.
If Buehrle and Reyes did not have secret, verbal understandings with Loria, then Buehrle and Reyes have no reason to be mad.
This is nonsense. And so reductive. The Marlins sold these guys on a vision for the future, one where the team makes a good faith effort to put a competitive baseball team together and is willing to spend a dollar or two. Then they utterly abandoned that vision less than a year later.
But yeah, expecting it is a different thing.
If they believed they had non-enforceable verbal agreements them they do. As far as I can see what Buhrle is saying is that he signed under the understanding that the Marlins wanted him to be a Marlin, he's not saying the Marlins couldn't trade him or that it wasn't their right. What he's saying is that the Marlins behaved in a shady manner, and quite frankly if he doesn't have a right to be unhappy then neither do the Marlins fans. If Buhrle wasn't "duped" then nobody was, because the Marlins had the absolute legal right to do everything they did.
Which is nice and all, but essentially meaningless. It's like me ######## that Bud Light agreed to make a good faith effort to get me into parties with bikini models and a white terrier wearing sunglasses.
Given that every player has agreed to a Uniform Player's Contract and rules that explicitly state that all arrangements must be made within that contract, no player can have a reasonable expectation to anything more than that. If the Marlins are violating the terms of the revenue sharing agreement, that's between the Marlins, MLB, and the MLBPA.
Did Marlins fans sign a contract with Jeff Loria that explicitly stated that all agreements would be in writing within a contract?
You can make an argument that, on some level, Marlins fans and the city of Miami had a verbal contract with Jeff Loria for certain things. Mark Buehrle and Jose Reyes, however, can not, as they are explicitly forbidden by the terms of the CBA to make verbal agreements involving assignment of their contracts.
If, in the future, either those promotions do not happen for anyone at all, or I don't consider him for them, I believe that he would be perfectly justified in being pissed off at me. No contract will have been violated, but he might conclude that I was acting in bad faith when I dangled that carrot in front of him.
It's like me ######## that Bud Light agreed to make a good faith effort to get me into parties with bikini models and a white terrier wearing sunglasses.
Sorry, but what the ####? Do you really think that everything the Marlins said to Buehrle amounts to nothing more substantial than the fluffy claims of a television ad?
And again, Buhrle isn't making an argument based on K theory. He's making an argument that Miami's business practices are shady. He's not saying he was injured by them, he's not saying anyone owes him anything, he's saying that he had been led to believe things were one way and they turned out to not be that way. Contract law purports only to make parties whole, Bugrle isn't arguing he's been made unwhole so the determined attempt to relegate this discussion to what's legally appropriate falls flat.
To put it another way that will draw the distinction I'm trying to make, K law has is about equity, not morality. Buhrle isn't saying that he has been dealt an inequity through a breach of K or quasi-K. He's saying he was treated immorally, K law has nothing to say on that point.
But even that might be actionable, I've seen cases where it is. A better analogy (since MLB contracts are fully integrated) is where you already have an employee, you verbally assure him the next promotion is his, then don't give it to him. He has a right to be angry, but there's nothing actionable about it.
How can anybody be surprised to be traded early in the life of a big-dollar contract with the Marlins?
If you don't want to be traded, demand a no-trade clause, or go somewhere else.
I was recently approached about leaving my current job, which is very safe and stable, for another job which would pay me about 30% more than my current job...but there is a legitimate chance that the funding for the position would be uncertain at the end of each year.
In exchange for high job security, I am sacrificing some compensation. If the Marlins didn't want to give Buehrle a no-trade, they probably had to offer him more money. He can't have it both ways. Boo-friggin'-hoo.
1. He really doesn't know this. Granted it's quite plausible. But that's all it is.
2. You mean "oral" promises, not verbal. Both oral and written contracts are verbal. But, to respond to your point, your point is not valid, because oral promises - or any promise not actually set out in the contract even if written - are specifically prohibited by MLB.
3. He looks even sillier making this argument, because it makes both him and his agent look very dumb. They asked for a no-trade, were denied with ownership making some noise about how "you have our word" - and then they took them at their word, despite the request for a no-trade specifically being denied? That is stupid.
I think it is dishonorable for Buehrle to state that the Marlins didn't "hold up their end," when the Marlins have not breached a single clause of the contract, and, indeed, no side deals are even allowed.
Those contracts were certainly going to make it tougher to trade them after next season but might have also had the effect of pushing the Marlins to trade them after just one season.
That's at least how I envision the conversation going. Should Buehrle have believed something like that... no. Is it understandable that he'd be angry about it... of course it is.
As to his choice of money over security, that's not incorrect. But it's not the whole story. The more I think about it the more I realize the question is about whether Buhrle was justified to put any stock in any non-enforceable agreements he had. My default position is that if someone gives me their word I believe them, but hell I'm 26 what do I know. Maybe the frog should have known better, but I don't know that his anger is invalid.
And for the record, if I had to leave my dog behind I wouldn't care if my anger was rational, I'd still be angry.
Absolutely. It's an equitable defense. The defense is that Buehrle and his agent were also doing something prohibited by the CBA, which means that they have unclean hands, also acting in bad faith with respect to the CBA, so them claiming some moral high ground is completely ridiculous.
But it wasn't a side deal. You have the deal on one hand, and what's basically just a promise on the other.
The fish held up to the K. They didn't keep their promise. They aren't required to by law, just as I wouldn't be required to give you $50 just because I said "Ray, I'm gonna give you $50". But if you believed me when I said that, you'd be angry when I didn't come through.
But that assumes that it's a "deal". Buhrle said he received an "assurance" that he wouldn't be traded. That's not the same thing as saying the Marlin's and Buhrle bargained for an exchange of legal detriment's one of which was Buhrle wouldn't be traded. This wasn't a deal and the CBA has nothing to say about it. Buhrle isn't trying to enforce anything, he's saying the Marlins made him a promise they didn't keep. A promise doesn't equal a deal and pretending it does while quoting the "unclean hands doctrine" is silly.
Except the Marlins and Loria/Buehrle aren't allowed to make any kind of deal or any kind of promise of this nature. Loria didn't eat the last slice of pizza, this was an alleged agreement involving assignment of contract, which is a Big Deal in baseball terms.
But we make those kinds of promises every day. "I'll pick you up from the airport," "I'll fix your computer." If we fail in those promises does our friend have a right to be angry?
Yeah, but you don't make those kinds of promises after signing a contract in which you explicitly are not allowed to make those kind of promises.
I do.
Which he explicitly can't. How contract assignment is governed entirely covered with the CBA. None of Loria, Buehrle, or Reyes had any reasonable basis to believe that they could even enter into an agreement, an assurance, a pinky-swear, a handshake, a mutual accord, a treaty, or wink-wink, concerning anything to do with the contract that was not written.
Abso-#######-lutely. These aren't kids agreeing to rules on a pickup game of wiffleball. These are experienced adults entering into eight and nine-figure contracts, within an extensive legal framework that governs these contract, a legal framework that has existed for decades and is very familiar to all parties involved.
Once you agree that the promise was unenforceable, you've lost the argument. Buehrle wanted to have his cake and eat it too: he wanted the higher salary from not having a no-trade, but he also wanted an illegally promised no trade. He is trying to have it both ways, and therefore is being immoral for balking later (as he was immoral for accepting what he knew to be an illegal promise).
If a no-trade was that important to him, he should have told them to go scratch when they didn't offer it.
If I had previously agreed, with this boss, to a governing contract that explicitly stated that I may have to work in a broom closet, then yes, I would have absolutely no right to be upset.
Sure, unless they are specifically prohibited, as is the case with some types of contracts in some jurisdictions (e.g., when real property is being transferred), or as is the case when a written contract specifically states that the contract represents the entire agreement between the parties.
Or as is the case here.
No, there's a distinction. Nobody is trying to enforce anything here. Buhrle isn't saying the Marlins couldn't trade him because of the promise. The CBA prohibits the parties from attempting to legally bind each other outside the contracts, that's not what Buhrle is alleging happened here.
Edit: what I'm saying is that the legal argument is moot here. It just isn't a legal question. Nobody thought the Marlins were bound by their promise to Buhrle, Buhrle's point is just that he feels ethically betrayed because he was lead to believe a falsehood.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, this isn't a matter of what's legally appropriate. The Marlins held themselves out to Buhrle as an entity with a set of beliefs, when Buhrle saw those beliefs to be untrue he was irritated. That's all that's going on here. He may or may not be justified, I think there's merit to the idea he should have seen it coming. But I don't fall on that side if the fence just because humans are by nature trusting.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main